Fundamental Truth

The President basically said he doesn’t like Representative Government

President Obama recently said that some Republicans in Congress told him in private that they agree with his policies. And would like to vote for his policies. To do what is right for the American people. But they won’t because they have a primary election coming up. And if they agree with the president that will hurt them in that election if they go up against some Tea Party candidate. And they’re afraid what Rush Limbaugh will say. Him and his conservative extremists.

Now think about what the president is saying. He said that these Republicans would vote for his policies if they weren’t afraid to vote against the will of the people they represent. For if these Republicans are afraid they will lose a primary election by voting for the president’s policies that could only mean the people they represent don’t want them voting for the president’s policies.

This is very telling. For what the president is really saying is that he could do what he wants to do if it wasn’t for representative government. That is the big obstacle preventing him from passing policies the people oppose. The people. Which is why his administration is full of czars to help write and execute policy. Because they have no elections to worry about. And can do things against the will of the people all day long without worrying about the consequences of doing so.

If you want to see the Result of Failed Liberal Policies just look at the Big Democrat-Controlled Cities

There’s a reason why those who want to implement liberal policies like the president have to use deceit. The nation is about twice as conservative as it is liberal (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). This is why Republicans in Congress fear the Tea Party. Because the Tea Party represent about twice as many of the people than they and their liberal friends in Congress do.

There’s a reason why the number of people who call themselves liberal has hovered around 20% for decades. Because liberal policies are not good for America. They are only good for the ‘connected’ class. Those with friends in high places. America’s aristocracy. Who hate the Tea Party. And most of America. As they talk condescendingly down to them from their lofty perches in academia, the mainstream media, union leadership, Hollywood, government bureaucracies, etc. People who are wealthier than most. Who like to force people to live the way they want them to live through the heavy hand of government. While exempting themselves from the laws they pass for us. Like Obamacare.

If you want to see the result of their failed policies just look at the big Democrat-controlled cities. Like Detroit. Detroit was controlled by Democrats for decades. Democrats there ushered in their liberal utopia. They raised taxes so much to fund a massive city government that they chased business out of the city. While layer upon layer of costly regulatory policies helped chase even more businesses away. And with the jobs gone the people soon followed. Now they have half the population they once did. With their tax base imploded they are now left with unfunded pension and retiree health care obligations for their public sector that can never pay. Sending them into bankruptcy.

Just imagine all the Good that could come from Paying an Entry-Level Worker $75,000

There are a lot of people on the left that want a federal bailout for Detroit. They want people who have long suffered the high taxation and the job-killing legislation that caused Detroit’s problems in the first place to bail out the city. People who do not benefit from those generous pension and retiree health insurance benefits. And who will not benefit from a bailout. They will only see higher taxes. More federal debt. Or more inflation to eat away the money THEY saved for their own retirements (if the government chooses to monetize the debt). Just so the people in the public sector can enjoy better and longer retirements than they will enjoy. Because they’ll have to work closer to their own death as they will never be able to save enough to enjoy a ‘public sector’ retirement if they have to pay for the public sector’s retirement as well as their own.

Here’s a thought, why not have the other big Democrat-controlled cities bail out Detroit? Oh, wait a minute, they can’t. Because their public sectors have left them greatly indebted, too. These cities are irresponsibly running up debts that they never will be able to repay. No matter how much they raise taxes and implement new taxes. There’s never enough. In fact, in creating their little liberal utopias they have chased a lot of business, and their tax base, out of their cities. Yet these cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Perhaps these cities should band together. If they are so much more enlightened than the rest of the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals in this country perhaps they should secede from the US. Declare themselves city-states. And join a federation with other Democrat city-states. Then they can live like they want to live. And tell the rest of us (the 80% or so who don’t think like they do) to go someplace warm but not at all pleasant.

They could raise taxes on everyone to really redistribute wealth. They can do away with drug laws. Lessen the severity of our criminal laws so there isn’t such a disparity of offenders in our jails. Make it a hate crime to criticize anyone who isn’t a conservative. Have government-funded birth control, abortion and morning-after pills. Government-funded housing. Government-funded food. And government-funded health care. They can outlaw profits and force businesses to maximize the social good. Raise the minimum wage to a true living wage. Say, $75,000 a year. Just imagine all the good that could come from paying an entry-level worker $75,000. There would be no more student loan debt. For there would be no reason to go to college to become engineers, doctors, nurses, dentists, paramedics, pharmacists, etc. Wouldn’t that be lovely? Wouldn’t you love to work and live in a city where you could do any kind of drug wherever you wanted? Even while you were cooking food in an entry-level job? Where there was no punishment for breaking the law? And no one was so puritanical to tell us not to have sex as often or with as many people as we wanted? Wouldn’t women love this? Sure, there would be an epidemic of venereal disease but there would be free health care to treat that (if anyone still worked hard to learn to become a doctor, nurse, dentist, paramedic or pharmacist, that is). Can you just see these utopian city-states?

Actually, you can see it right now. For I dare say anyone wanting to open a business or raise a family would NOT want to do so in a city like this. The jobs would leave first. Then the people. Imploding the tax base. Until you’d have nothing but Detroits dotting the landscape of this utopian federation of liberal city-states. This is what the president and those in the 20% want. While of course exempting themselves from this world. Living in their gated fortresses. Comfortably. Where they’ll blame the people who abandoned their utopian city-states as unpatriotic. Who wouldn’t have fled if it wasn’t for the Tea Party. Rush Limbaugh. And, of course, George W. Bush. Who the left will never tire of hating. Or blaming.

Liberals Always Call for Bipartisanship when they Lose Elections

When Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats won in the 2006 midterm elections, it was the end of conservatism. They said so. When Obama won in 2008, he advised those across the aisle that elections have consequences (see The roots of Obama’s demise by Marc A. Thiessen posted 10/25/2010 on The Washington Post).

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won.” Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

When the far left lies and tricks voters to elect them, they confuse that for a mandate. When the truth of their policies comes out, though, they lose subsequent elections. Then demand that Republicans work with them. For the best interests of the American people. Unlike Nancy Pelosi. Or President Obama.

When liberal Democrats have the majority in Congress, bipartisanship means that Republicans should accept being the Democrats’ bitch. When they’re out of power, it means something completely different. That Republicans shouldn’t govern like Democrats. Governing roughshod all over the opposition party. Why? “Because,” they say. Pouting. (They really don’t have anything better. They just HATE not having power.)

It was Always about Growing Government, not Improving the Economy

And as the new year begins, President Obama is giving us a Bill Clinton wag of the finger (figuratively), telling us to play nice. Which is what bullies typically do when they lost their power to bully (see Obama: Dems, GOP must cooperate in new year by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! News).

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said Saturday that lawmakers must return to Washington next week prepared to make serious decisions about how to grow the economy in the short run and stay competitive in the future.

“I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through,” Obama said. “And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.”

Not quite the ‘thanks but no thanks’ he told the Republicans 3 days after his inauguration. And all that talk about jobs being job one? And that laser like focus on jobs? It was all bull [deleted expletive]. Unemployment went up after his stimulus plan to keep unemployment under 8%. It’s still flirting with 10% some 2 years later. But the size of government spending exploded. Which is what the Left wants. It’s what they always want. So they got what they wanted. The only problem is that some of their supporters believed they were trying to improve the economy.

The Public Sector’s Message to the Taxpayers: Let Them Eat Cake

The liberal left comprises approximately 20% of the population. That’s why it’s hard for them to win elections. Especially after they’ve exploded government spending following an election win. And that spending is bankrupting the country. Our states. And our cities.

A big chunk of that spending goes to support the public sector. Public sector unions have made public sector jobs very cushy. No one in the private sector comes close to their wage and benefit packages. And no one in the private sector enjoys job security like they have in the public sector. Until now. In Wisconsin, the Republicans are in power. And the public sector is getting nervous (see Wisconsin State Workers Fret, as G.O.P. Takes Over by Monica Davey posted 1/1/2011 on The New York Times)

But it’s just not in Wisconsin. Public sector unions are nervous wherever Republicans have ascended to power. Because they worry that the good times may come to an end. And they may have to live like the rest of us. Some are even predicting that we may see a little European rioting here in the United States (see Topic A: What will be 2011’s biggest political surprise? by Ed Rogers posted 1/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The biggest political surprise in 2011 may come in the form of the shock produced by public-sector labor strikes and demonstrations that could stray into civil disorder as state and local governments cut budgets. Government workers could be laid off by the thousands, and millions of the beneficiaries of government-supplied salaries, pensions and benefits could see reductions in pay and program allowances they have been told to expect.

The same kind of protests that have rocked Paris, London and Rome could erupt in California, New York and Illinois.

When European Socialism cuts back on pensions, college tuition assistance, health care, etc., the beneficiaries of European Socialism burn cities. And this anarchy may be coming to a city near you.

The schism between the governed and those governing could become greater than ever as the government tries to protect itself for its own sake and not for the public good. The millions of Americans who have lost jobs or face increasing economic uncertainty resent the relative posterity and security that government now provides for itself. President Obama will say he is for more “stimulus,” but even the money-making printing presses in Washington are at their limits.

It’s a master-slave mentality. The masters are the public sector. The slaves are the taxpayers. And the masters have lost touch with reality. They laugh at the poor suffering masses struggling to pay their taxes. When advised of the taxpayer’s plight what do they say? “Let them eat cake.” (A reference to what Marie Antoinette reportedly said during the French Revolution. While the upper classes had food, the lower classes were to be satisfied with oven scrapings.)

Pennsylvania Liquor Stores a Microcosm of Public Sectors Everywhere

Of course, the poor, suffering taxpayers would probably not be in such a foul mood if it wasn’t for the value they were getting for those high taxes. That public sector sucks. As any enterprise without competition does. Why give a damn about what you’re doing if you’re the only caterer in town?

In Pennsylvania, you can only buy wine and liquor in a government store. And the service stinks to high heaven. The good people of Pennsylvania want to privatize their booze. But the public sector union oppose privatization (see A Push to Privatize Pennsylvania Liquor Stores by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 12/31/2010 on The New York Times).

Like prisoners in the gulag, consumers here can only fantasize about buying their wine and liquor in a competitive free market. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has run the liquor stores for eight decades, a relic of the post-Prohibition era, when government thought controlling the sale of alcohol would limit consumption.

The legislature has consistently dismissed talk of privatizing the system, mainly because of opposition from the union representing the store workers and from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and conservative teetotalers, all influential in the state.

And what’s the recourse for an angry people?

“This is insane!” said Bill Conrad, 68, a retired electrical engineer. “People are going to New York and Jersey” to buy alcohol.

And there it is. Competition makes everything better. Should you be lucky enough to live close to the state border. Where I live, I can go to most any party store, some drugstores, even some supermarkets. And you know what? I can go to anyone and buy whatever I want whenever I want. Private stores have competition so they have an incentive to keep their shelves stocked. And their doors open for customers.

If you want to get an idea about how Obamacare will be, you can look at the liquor stores in Pennsylvania. That’s what happens when the governments tries to run anything.

The Taxpayers Message to the Public Sector Employees: Get a Job

The Democrats took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections. The people have rejected their Big Government liberal agenda. And they know it. So they’re now trying to shame the Republicans into working with them to keep their Big Government dreams alive. It’s either that or they have to figure out a way to get rid of those pesky elections.

But the public sector is bankrupting the country. And the people paying the taxes to support that public sector are saying enough is enough. They don’t like making sacrifices in their own life so others in government can live a better life. Especially when they have to settle for such rotten service from the public sector they’re paying more and more to fund.

Their message to these pampered public sector employees? The same parents have been telling their kids for ages. Get a job.

Deficit Reduction: Increase Taxes, Molest Our Women and Have Old People Hurry Up and Die

President Obama’s bipartisan commission has issued their report on deficit reduction. A lot of unpleasant things in it. But, then again, what do you expect from a commission/blue ribbon panel? Politicians lie and kiss a lot of ass to get elected. And they’re not going to throw that all away acting like they got a pair. So they hide behind commissions and blue ribbon panels and say, hey, it isn’t me that wants to raise your taxes and cut your benefits. It’s these guys. These commission folks. And they get a report that will meet with certain opposition and die in committee. But they can say they tried. And that’s how you do politics when you got no balls.

You know, Sara Palin probably could have done a better job. She’s hunted bear. She’s got balls. Figuratively, of course. That’s what you need to do the tough stuff. Guts. Pity Barack Obama is no Sarah Palin.

Trim cost-of-living increases for current retirees and disabled beneficiaries.

Apply a 15-cent gas tax.

Cut $500 billion from Medicare and other federal health programs over 10 years.

Well, we know higher taxes don’t stimulate the economy. So, to pay down the deficit we are going to prolong the recession. Swell. Well, at least old people won’t have to worry much. They’ll be put out of their misery with the ‘hurry up and die’ provisions included. Less money to live on. And less health care so they will hurry up and die before reaching 69. And, if they do, not only does the government not have to pay them their Social Security benefits, but they can keep all that money the newly deceased paid into the system (the deceased’s Social Security benefits don’t go to their heirs which explains why government is so opposed to private 401(k)s – those contributions can be bequeathed to surviving heirs). And the cuts in discretionary spending?

They proposed cutting annual discretionary spending by $200 billion, half from defense and half from nondefense.

Ah, yes, the ubiquitous defense cuts. Gotta have defense cuts. But you know what? I don’t think they’re going to sit well after this holiday season. The fondling of our wives, mothers and daughters in our airports. Strangers looking at semi-naked images of them. It’s not right. Is this the price of safety? The molestation of our wives, mothers and daughters? I think not. There are other ways. And I’m not talking about the apology tour. And before all you peaceniks start blaming this on America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember this. We weren’t in those countries before 9/11/2001. It’s better to violate 3-4 enemy combatants a year (say by water-boarding) than having all our women and children molested whenever they fly. And if it takes a great big fat defense budget to do this, so be it. Let’s have someone else suffer the fear and humiliation for a change.

Republicans and Democrats Disagree. Centrists See a Way to Lie to Independents.

So what are others saying? Well, The New YorkTimes notes there ain’t a chance in hell of it being enacted as-is (see the Op-Ed A Deficit of Respect by Tobin Harshaw posted 11/13/2010 on The New York Times).

“Among Democrats, liberals are in near revolt against the White House over the issue, even as substantive and political forces push Mr. Obama to attack chronic deficits in a serious way,” reports The Times’s Jackie Calmes. “At the same time, Republicans face intense pressure from their conservative base and the Tea Party movement to reject any deal that includes tax increases, leaving their leaders with little room to maneuver in any negotiation and at risk of being blamed by voters for not doing their part.”

Their plan – mixing painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare with big tax increases – has no chance of enactment as written, certainly not as a whole.

But they also point out warring sides could reach compromise.

On the other hand, a 1982 Social Security commission chaired by Alan Greenspan came up with a plan for solvency that earned the blessing of President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Thomas O’Neill, D-Mass. It passed Congress easily and generated almost three decades of program surpluses.

Then again, President Obama is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan listened to the people. He communicated with the people. Unlike Obama. Who’s detached and aloof. He pushed his agenda against the will of the people. For him, it’s all about him. And there are some Democrats who like him as much as he likes himself. They look at this report and see not what’s best for the country. But what’s best for Barack Obama (see Deficit Directive Tracks GOP Aims by John D. McKinnon and Laura Meckler posted 11/13/2010 on the Wall Street Journal).

Centrist Democrats are encouraging the president to embrace bipartisan ideas for deficit reduction, even if these are unpopular with the party’s liberal wing. They say that among other benefits, that would help Mr. Obama regain credibility with independent voters he will need to win re-election in 2012. Independents backed him in 2008 but shifted to the GOP this year.

A fight with liberals might even be politically helpful, said Jon Cowan, president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. “If you’re looking at re-election, your No. 1 imperative has got to be winning back the center of the electorate,” he said.

It’s nice to know where some people’s priorities are.

Gridlock Can Reduce the Deficit. So Can Repealing Obamacare.

The report’s scariest deficit scenario relies on a Congressional Budget Office projection that under what it calls “current policy,” the U.S. government’s debt will soar from the current 60 percent of GDP to 100 percent of GDP by 2023 and to twice the country’s annual economic output by the year 2035.

Current policy? What’s that?

But “current policy” as defined by CBO does — in the sometimes upside-down world of Washington — require action. It assumes that Congress will pass and President Obama will sign a continuation of at least some of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire; that lawmakers will once again vote to ease the bite of the alternative minimum tax (AMT); that Congress will block a scheduled increase in estate tax rates; and that the government will continue to pass so-called “doc fixes” to shield physicians from mandated cuts in the payments they get under Medicare.

And all that means what?

But if none of those actions are taken — what the CBO calls the “current law” baseline — the deficit numbers look considerably brighter.

In layman terms, we haven’t spent a lot of this money yet. If Republicans and Democrats simply agree to disagree and give us gridlock, actual deficits won’t be as high as projected. Yes, there will be pain for some. But the hole we’ll dig for ourselves won’t be as deep.

And this is really the frustrating part of this whole debate. These are projections. They haven’t spent the money yet. So don’t. Just don’t spend the damn money. Repealing Obamacare should be a no-brainer. That trillion dollar abomination hasn’t given anyone anything yet. So kill it. Now. Before it becomes another entitlement like Social Security. Come on. Do the right thing. And legislate like you got a pair.

Whenever the government wants to raise your taxes, they use fear. What does the typical family in suburbia hear? “If the city doesn’t get this millage approved, the city will have no choice but to lay off police officers and fire fighters.” It’s never, “If we don’t get this millage approved, the city will have to cut pay and benefits of our bloated and overpaid city bureaucracy. Or lay off some of the deadwood.” No. It’s always the cops and the fire fighters. Because it’s more scary. Mothers worry about the safety of their children. And will do anything for them. Even pay more taxes. If it was anyone else talking like this, we’d call it extortion. But when our government shakes us down for protection money, they call it fiscal responsibility.

The federal government works much in the same way. Of course, there are no federal police officers or fire fighters protecting our communities day in and day out. So they go for the jugular. That third rail. Social Security. When the White House and Capitol Hill were staring each other off into a government shutdown in the 1990s, what did Bill Clinton do? He threatened Social Security (see GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts by Damian Paletta posted on The Wall Street Journal).

Eventually, the debt ceiling was raised, but only after a brief government shutdown and warnings from the Clinton administration that the government might temporarily stop mailing Social Security checks.

One thing not on the table was lawmaker pay and benefits. Little old ladies would lose their Social Security checks before they would ever let that happen. Fast forward to today. Federal deficits and the debt have never been higher. In the discussion of spending cuts, that discussion included the other third rail of politics. Lawmaker pay and benefits. There’s talk now about cutting their pay. Of course, that will never happen. Even though they could afford it (see Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers’ salaries by Jordy Yager posted on The Hill).

Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

And this doesn’t include any of their benefits or graft. How does this make you feel? These are the people that are bankrupting our country. Destroying our jobs with their anti-business policies. And forcing us to get by on less. While they live the good life. Yes, let’s cut their pay. If we slash it by $100,000, they’d still be making more than the majority of their constituents. Something just wrong with that. Our servants living better than us.

President Obama: Typical Tax and Spend Liberal Who Hates Tax Cuts

With the loss of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama’s FDR/LBJ spending has hit a snag. Nancy Pelosi is not there to rubberstamp his ultra-left liberal agenda. In fact, the new House leadership is talking about repealing some of that ultra-left liberal legislation to reduce that projected annual deficit of $4,125 billion (see Barack Obama Outspends George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan Combined from this same website).

Front and center in this debate are the George W. Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of this year. And all of a sudden, President Obama is concerned about deficit spending (see Obama calls for compromise, won’t budge on tax cuts by Kevin Cullum posted on The Hill).

“At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,” the president said. “We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.”

Oh, he’s concerned now. He wasn’t with his bailouts to help fund union pensions. Or the biggest explosion in federal spending ever. The trillion dollar+ per annum Obamacare. But he’s being a little devious here. Earlier, he said that $700 billion cost of the Bush tax cuts was over ten years (see the above link to this same website). That comes to $70 billion annually. Compared that to his projected $4,125 billion annual deficit and he loses all credibility. He doesn’t care about $4,125 billion in deficit spending but will put his foot down about a paltry annual $70 billion in tax savings. Why? He’s a tax and spend liberal. Any spending (other than defense) is okay. But any tax cut is simply irresponsible.

We Rejected Obama’s Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda on Tuesday

The message on Tuesday was that the people have rejected Obama’s ultra-left liberal agenda. America is a center-right country. That center-right is made up of conservatives, moderates and independents. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, belong to that far left minority called liberal. The clear message is that the 80% rejected the 20%. Of course, Obama sees it differently.

The president said that the “message was clear” from voters on Election Day, and that he was also “frustrated” by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. “You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results,” Obama said. “I do too.”

No, we’re not upset that Democrats and Republicans weren’t working together. We were upset that the liberal Democrats used their majority in Congress to govern against the will of the people. That is the true message. It wasn’t the partisanship that bothered us. It was the lack of it to stop the far-left liberal agenda that did.

Ethical and transparent is all well and good with Republicans in power, but devious is just fine when the Democrats are back in power.

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund sat down with Rep. Brian Baird, a six-term Democrat from Washington State. He’s not running for a seventh term. He’s retiring and going home to be with his children while they’re still children. With a close to his political career, he had nothing to lose speaking his mind. And he did. (See Requiem for the Pelosi Democrats posted on line 10/30/2010.) One thing this Democrat wasn’t happy with was the Democrat leadership.

Mr. Baird recalls that he was “very excited” when his party took control of Congress in 2006, but he saw ominous signs early on. Before the 2006 election, he says, Mrs. Pelosi had 30 members working on a rules package to make the House more ethical and deliberative. “We abandoned all that work after the election, and leaders told us we should trust them to clean things up. I don’t know a single member of the Democratic caucus who saw the final rules package before they voted on it.”

Even her own don’t like her. Nancy Pelosi was going to have the most ethical and transparent House. Of course, Pelosi initiated that initiative when the Republicans were in control. When she was working on a very draconian set of rules for the House of Representatives. Then, to her shock, the Democrats won a majority in the House and, with it, the leadership positions. And the 30-member panel stopped their work. Why? Those draconian rules had but one purpose; curb Republican power. With them being in the majority, they didn’t need any set of rules to curb Republican power. And they sure as hell weren’t going to implement any rules that would curb their own power. For the devious like to work outside the rules as much as possible.

Obamacare – long and convoluted, best passed without reading (for it’s not as quick a read as War and Peace or Atlas Shrugged).

Once back in power, they were giddy with that power. They took it as a mandate to change America. But it wasn’t. It was a mandate to change Washington. But they tried their level best to remake America to what the people wanted. Demanded. To make it liberal. To give us Big Government. This is what they and about 20% of Americans who call themselves ‘liberal’ wanted. So they ignored the other 80% and went to work. Their bills were so long and convoluted that it made Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (both in the 1,000-page class of novel) seem like Readers Digest reading by comparison. And one of the longest and most convoluted? Obamacare. Which few read before voting.

“What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn’t wait to know what was in it,” he recalls. “I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?” They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.

Even Nancy Pelosi said that Congress would have to approve it before they could learn what was in it. Remarkable. Can you imagine the teachers’ union agreeing to this? Saying to the school board, “Sure, whatever you say. If the contract’s fair that’s good enough for me. We, the teachers, can learn about what we agreed to after we vote to ratify it.” No, they wouldn’t. Neither would Nancy Pelosi pass a bill sponsored by Republicans without reading it. It’s okay for her, though. Because she’s an elitist. And doesn’t really care what we ‘rubes’ think anyway.

Obamacare – We’ll pay for filet mignon but get hotdogs and hamburgers, a very expensive mediocrity.

Passing Obamacare required some financial shenanigans. They needed CBO to score it under a trillion dollars. Which was like giving everyone filet mignon at the family reunion BBQ by asking everyone to pay $5 to cover the cost. You can’t do it. If you’re buying food for everyone and only collecting $5 a head, trust me, you’re serving hot dogs and hamburger. But if you collect the money first and don’t feed anyone until after, say, 4 years, you’ll be able to stay within your imaginary budget in those first 4 years.

“I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it,” he sighs. “I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn’t kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer.”

Of course, people are not going to enjoy paying for nothing. They’re not just going to sit idly by with their wallets open, whistling a happy tune. There will come a point when they’re going to ask what they’re getting for all their money. And then after 4 years of paying for filet mignon, they’ll finally get to enjoy the benefit they’ve been paying and waiting patiently for so long. And, guess what? They’ll still get hot dogs and hamburger. Because everyone can’t have filet mignon. It’s just too damn expensive. So like with everything else Big Government does, we’ll end up with a very expensive mediocrity.

The rubes in flyover country have had enough of deficits. And enough of the arrogant and condescending Pelosi and Obama.

Nancy Pelosi and most in Congress are elitists. They are so far removed from ordinary America that it’s like visiting a foreign land for them. That’s why they call it ‘flyover’ country. The only thing the country outside their liberal districts is good for is flying over en route to another liberal district. They either think everyone thinks like they think. Or that those too stupid to be able to think like they think should just be seen and not heard, grateful for whatever alms they hand out. The concept of alternate viewpoints is alien to them. So when advisors told them to go ahead and spend because the people (the people that count – the 20%) don’t care about deficits, they listened. Well, not so much listened. But heard what they wanted to hear.

Democrats, he says, will also have to recognize why they lost touch with voters. “Back in September, we had pollsters and strategists from my party tell members that the mass of people didn’t care about the deficit. The mind-boggling lack of reality coming from some of the people who give us so-called advice is stunning.”

Well, people care about deficits. Like the Left used to care about when Ronald Reagan was running up a deficit the size of a drop in the bucket compared to theirs. And the amazing thing is, they aren’t done spending yet. Which is really frustrating the 80%. The rubes. The good people in flyover country. Who are growing weary of the condescending and arrogant Nancy Pelosi and President Obama.

The mandate was to change Washington, not America. Now, America is polarized. And it’s business as usual in Washington.

Toby Harnden, American Way, wrote a piece appearing on www.telegraph.co.uk called US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s world turned upside down as Democrats face electoral disaster. Those familiar with history will be familiar with part of this title. For tradition says that when Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781, the British marched out while their band played The World Turned Upside Down. How very apropos. For the ruling elite is stunned, much like Lord Cornwallis was, at the thought of being defeated by a bunch of rubes. So desperate to avoid such a ‘Cornwallian’ disaster, the Left is trying everything within their power. Even abandoning the lie that brought them into office.

The irony of Obama being the blue-state president is acute. Back in 2004, the then state senator shot to international attention by mocking the pundits who “like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States”.

He declared: “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America. There’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America. There’s the United States of America.”

Of course, once he got into office, it was all, “I won. You lost. Nyah nyah, na nyah nyah.”

Swept into power on a wave of adulation and talk of an historic new era, Obama never felt he needed to work with Republicans. It took him 18 months before he invited Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, to the White House.

But the center-right, the 80%, were not amused.

The problem was that his world view was that of a conventional liberal Democrat but he was president of a nation that was centre-right. His victory came from those who wanted him to change Washington, not America.

And by governing against the will of the people, America is polarized more than ever. And it’s business as usual in Washington. Perhaps a bit dirtier, though.

Jobs talk and liberal BS walks. Yeah, it’s the economy, stupid.

Obama ran as a centrist. But once in office, he ruled as a liberal. The most liberal president ever. And like Nancy Pelosi, he is getting exasperated by these rubes who are just too stupid to know what’s best for them. So he’s abandoning that reaching across the aisle nonsense and doing what Democrats do best.

Obama’s high-minded appeals for national unity are no more. His electoral strategy is one of desperate damage limitation. Most pollsters expect Democrats to lose more than 50 seats and control of the House of Representatives.

They will probably keep control of the Senate but at least six seats look lost. Obama’s response has been to “slice and dice” the electorate in the way he condemned. He endured the indignity of being called “dude” on Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central show as the price for enticing young voters.

He’s appeared on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s internet radio show to woo black voters. On Univision radio, he told Latino voters of the need to “punish our enemies”. He routinely attacks Fox News and Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s former adviser, as a way of energising liberals.

With the realization that America doesn’t want what Pelosi and Obama are pushing, they reach out to those who they once simply took for granted: the young, the blacks and the Latinos. Who they need more than ever now that so many women are turning to the Republicans this election. Because there are no jobs. After 2 years in office. And trillions of dollars in spending.

What was that the Democrats used to say? Oh, yes, I think I remember. “It’s the economy, stupid.” Duh.